Prognostic Factors for Successful Functional Appliance Therapy in Skeletal Class II Malocclusion A Systematic Review
Main Article Content
Abstract
AIM: To investigate clinical or cephalometric parameters that contribute to favourable outcomes with functional appliance therapy in skeletal class II malocclusion.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six electronic databases were searched PubMed, Ovid, Lilacs, Cochrane, Scopus, and Web of Science up to 25thFebruary 2025. All study designs which evaluated factors associated with favourable and unfavourable outcome with functional appliance therapy for the treatment of skeletal class II malocclusion were included. The electronic search, initial screening, data extraction, risk of bias assessment was independently performed by the two reviewers. The collected data were analysed from the finally selected articles based on type of study, sample size, type of functional appliance used, and patient characteristics or factors studied which could be considered as positive predictive factors for functional appliance.
RESULTS: Seven retrospective studies and one prospective study were included. Prognostic factors like the Co-Go-Me angle, chin position, growth pattern and other occlusal factors such as overbite, overjet were evaluated in the selected studies. Four studies were rated very good with 9 points and four other studies were rated as satisfactory with 7 points using the New Castle Ottawa Scale. Due to heterogeneity of the factors studied a meta–analysis could not be conducted in this systematic review.
CONCLUSION: Two included studies reported Co- Go-Me angle as the single most important predictive factor for successful outcome. Cephalometric factors pointing to horizontal growth pattern or hypodivergence, chin position and occlusal variables like increased overbite and overjet were identified as positive predictive factors. However future studies with definitive comparison groups can strengthen the current evidence.
REGISTRATION: PROSPERO(CRD42022312039).
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
References
Proffit, W.R., Fields, H.W. and Sarver, D.M., 2007. Contemporary Orthodontics. Elsevier Brazil.
Paduano S, Rongo R, Bucci R, Carvelli G, Cioffi I. Impact of functional orthodontic treatment on facial attractiveness of children with Class II division 1 malocclusion. Eur J Orthod. 2020;42(2):144-50.
Bishara SE, Ziaja RR. Functional appliances: a review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1989;95(3):250-8.
AK, Duggal R, Parkash H. Skeletal and dentoalveolar effects of Twin-block and bionator appliances in the treatment of Class II malocclusion: a comparative study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006;130(5):594-602.
Vargervik K, Harvold EP. Response to activator treatment in Class II malocclusions. Am J Orthod. 1985;88(3):242-51.
Bock NC, von Bremen J, Ruf S. Stability of Class II fixed functional appliance therapy—a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Orthod. 2016;38(2):129-39.
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff JM, Akl EA, Brennan SE, Chou R. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. 2021;10(1):1-1.
Wells GA, Shea B, O’Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Ottawa Hosp Res Inst. 2013:1–4.
Ahn SJ, Kim JT, Nahm DS. Cephalometric markers to consider in the treatment of Class II Division 1 malocclusion with the bionator. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2001;119(6):578-86.
Bock NC, Jost J, Ruf S. Outcome quality of Class II division 1 Herbst-multibracket appliance treatment: influence of pretreatment Class II severity and skeletal maturity. Eur J Orthod. 2021;43(4):424-31.
Kumar SA, Shetty KS, Prakash AT. Growth modulation using functional appliances--Cephalometric predictors of successful response. Orthodontics (Chic). 2013;14(1).
Franchi L, Baccetti T. Prediction of individual mandibular changes induced by functional jaw orthopedics followed by fixed appliances in Class II patients. Angle Orthod. 2006;76(6):950-4.
Cretella Lombardo E, Franchi L, Gastaldi G, Giuntini V, Lione R, Cozza P, Pavoni C. Development of a prediction model for short-term success of functional treatment of Class II malocclusion. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(12):4473.
Patel HP, Moseley HC, Noar JH. Cephalometric determinants of successful functional appliance therapy. Angle Orthod. 2002;72(5):410-7.
Caldwell S, Cook P. Predicting the outcome of twin block functional appliance treatment: a prospective study. Eur J Orthod. 1999;21(5):533-9.
Kim JE, Mah SJ, Kim TW, Kim SJ, Park KH, Kang YG. Predictors of favourable soft tissue profile outcomes following Class II Twin-block treatment. Korean J Orthod. 2018;48(1):11-22.
Granholm A, Alhazzani W, Møller MH. Use of the GRADE approach in systematic reviews and guidelines. British J Anaes. 2019 Nov 1;123(5):554-9.
Wins SM, Antonarakis GS, Kiliaridis S. Predictive factors of sagittal stability after treatment of Class II malocclusions. Angle Orthod. 2016;86(6):1033-41.
Petrovic, A.G.; Stutzmann, J. The concept of mandibular tissue-level growth potential and the responsiveness to a functional appliance. In Orthodontics: States of Art, Essence of the Science; Graber, W.L., Ed.; Mo:CV Mosby Co.: St. Louis, MO, USA, 1986.
Petrovic, A., Stutzmann, J. and Lavergne, J., 1990. Mechanism of craniofacial growth and modus operandi of functional appliances: a cell-level and cybernetic approach to orthodontic decision making. Craniofacial Growth Theory and Orthodontic Treatment. Monograph, 23, pp.13-74.